Is using of two identical lens silly?

[Ko.Fe.]

After selling of my advanced DSLR kit I have GAS on RF. As result, I have two digital M and two film M. But... with only one lens I'm finding practical and satisfying. This is silly, I think.

Both digital and film now required much less exposures to be taken, comparing to what I used to take before. Now I need dozen, two, maximum single 36 frames roll exposures per event comparing to hundreds.
I'm finding what spending time to learn about subjects, getting close and in the right moment with most comfortable and single focal length works better for me instead of zooms or changing lenses.

Due to this, I'm thinning of downsizing my Leica set to one digital, one film camera and two identical lenses to be able to take analog and digital exposures in similar style, but for different purposes. Not always, but periodically.

Is owning of two identical lenses silly?

In my case I'm thinking of second Summarit-M 35 2.5. Works great on film, fine on digital. Ergonomically it is the lens I really like.
The only time the f2.5 is limiting me is the portraits (environmental) taken indoors, but I like to use flash for it.

My second choice is twice expensive Summicron 35 ASPH, but I think it is even more silly to pay twice for 0.5f difference. Even if I could confirm what f2.8 vs 2.5 or f2.5 vs f2 makes difference sometimes for indoor portraits if no flash involved.

 

[Robert Lai]

You're asking a crowd who likely own multiple lenses in the same focal length. So, we're going to be highly biased.

My highly biased view is that if this works for you, then you should do it.
Whether or not you want to get the Summicron ASPH is up to you.
The Voigtlander 35mm 1.7 M is very good, a lot less expensive, and bulkier.
But, it will give you 1 stop more than the f/2.5 lens.

 

[Godfrey]

Nothing wrong with having two identical lenses if you want to be able to grab either body at will and get what you want without having to swap the lens from one to the other, and you happen to like that particular lens enough. The more usual strategy is to have two lenses you want to use, one on each body, but this is by no means a requirement for sensibility. 🙂

The difference between f/2 and f/2.5 is almost a full stop, or a double the light gathering power for the f/2 lens. That means, for instance, that instead of ISO 1600, you can use ISO 800 for the same light. How important that is to your photography... only you can say. It's more important with film and the older digital bodies (M8, M9) vs the more recent digital bodies (typ 240, 246, 262, M10) which have greatly expanded the sensitivity range, and also depends on how much of your photo ideas require the ability to work with the shallower focus zone of the f/2 lens when wide open.

G

 

[kxl]

First of all, if having identical lenses works for you, then do it. I personally would not own identical lenses because it os easy enough to move the lens from one body to another. Now, as for having 2 or more lenses with the same FL, I think that's practically a requirment here on RFF.

 

[raid]

I thought that such a practice was mandatory to join RFF!!!
35mm lenses:
Canon 35/2,.....35/1.9, ...... 35/1.5, ....... 35/2.8 all ltm
Leica Summicron 35/2 M, Summaron 35/3.5 ltm
Zeiss 35/2 M
Nikon 35/1.8 ltm.

Come to think of it, but I prefer the 50mm lens as my normal lens over the 35mm lens.

 

[Huss]

I don't think it is silly at all if you like that lens, and you are shooting film and digital at the same time. You can't be juggling lenses.
A little more speed is handy for film, so you may want a 35 1.4 lens for that. The CV 35 1.4 is an option, as is the 35 1.2 (both 'cheap' used), then the ZM 35 1.4 (pricier). But still much cheaper than the Leica options.

To show I'm in the same boat, I love the Nikkor 50 1.8G. For a lightweight plastic piece o junk (!) it really is excellent. I use it on my F6, F100 and D750. I'm thinking of getting another so I can use it at the same time on my F6 and D750.

 

[Ranchu]

If you have a lens you like, there's nothing wrong with having another. Heh.

🙂

 

[jordan.dickinson]

Not silly, but I'm justifying this as I have 2x 35 summicron ver.1's (canada and germany), as well as multiple 50mm Summiluxes and 2x 50 Summicron DR's. I don't know how I got to this point, but most of it was just finding reasons to pick up good deals and like you said, having identical lenses on different bodies. I say go for it.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I'm not sure why shifting from SLRs/DSLRs to Leica M bodies results in your needing to take fewer exposures for the same number of keepers, but it sounds like you are slowing down and being more deliberate. Since you are slowing down, perhaps you now have time to shift your lens from one body to the other. While having two identical lenses is convenient, its seems like an expensive convenience, especially since it is Leica lenses we are talking about. Really, it is your money, and only you can make the decision whether that convenience is worth it or not. I would buy a second lens with a different focal length for versatility, but that's just me. By the way, I have found that, when questions like this are asked, other people have no problem spending your money. I am actually a little surprised that no one has suggested that since you have four bodies you need four identical lenses. Think of the time savings.

 

[back alley]

go for it!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thank you all!

Huss, I don't like ZM lenses handling, not at all. I also quit from heavy and bulky lenses.
CV 35 1.4 is build acceptably for me, it just my preferable apertures are not f1.4 or f2, but f5.6-f8 and last thing I need is focus shift on these apertures.

 

[Ranchu]

By the way, I have found that, when questions like this are asked, other people have no problem spending your money. I am actually a little surprised that no one has suggested that since you have four bodies you need four identical lenses. Think of the time savings.

If I find something I like, I get another.

 

[filmtwit]

Pick up a 40mm summicron instead, it's far less expensive and will give you slightly different shot over the 35mm.

But I will say that the 35mm f2 summicron asph is the bomb

 

[Ko.Fe.]

4x4 is valid point, right on the money, but not in my case. Two of four M bodies I have are not identical with another two. One is with 1.33 crop of the sensor and another has no 35 framelines at all.

 

[p.giannakis]

I've got two AF Nikkors 50 f/1.8 - I use them both but i have to say that i got the second one as a bargain.

 

[newfilm]

Is owning of two identical lenses silly?

The hoarder voice in me says it's only silly if you have only one camera to mount it 🙂

 

[Fraser]

i quite often shoot with summicron v4 on m9 and pre asph on film m, almost the same lens.

 

[jsrockit]

I wouldn't have two of the same exact lens... but two of the same focal length? Sure (even though I don't).

 

[ptpdprinter]

4x4 is valid point, right on the money, but not in my case. Two of four M bodies I have are not identical with another two. One is with 1.33 crop of the sensor and another has no 35 framelines at all.

Well, there's your problem. Are you planning on selling your M3 and M8 to fund the second 35mm lens?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I wouldn't have two of the same exact lens... but two of the same focal length? Sure.

IMO, BW film and Color digital are already two very different things. How same lens renders on darkroom gelatin silver print is different from how it shows the colors on inkjet prints. I do both.

But with Fraser comment it seems I might also consider Cron v4. If it works on M9, it will works on M-E. I'm just afraid to play lottery with buying of older Leica lens.
Fraser Institute is very trusted organization in Canada, BTW (by some 🙂 ).

Well, there's your problem. Are you planning on selling your M3 and M8 to fund the second 35mm lens?

Yes, at least M8.